Folks, go here to read Kurt's piece on more enthusiasm for gunwalking. The people who propose such things are not "good guys who mean well". They are not "well meaning but misguided". The often stated proposition that we should just assign it to stupidity instead of malice, cannot apply when "a long train of abuses...evinces a design...".

They are evil. They are Criminals. They are thugs within the power structure of the State. They will do whatever evil they can get away with.

The problem lies at the very root. The NFA of 1934, the FFA of 1938 and the GCA of 1968 must be repealed. The War on (some) Drugs must end.

Folks. THIS is where we are! I saw the headline on Drudge which led to the San Fransisco Chronicle.

We
must get the picture folks. We must get it through our heads now. The
Police State is NOT here to be our friend nor the keep the peace. Thugs
with badges are commissioned to beat us into submission.

According
to this story at sfgate.com, Mr. Hesterberg was walking his two small
dogs on a sunny Sunday afternoon. He didn't have his dogs on a leash.
This might be an infraction, but hardly the kind of crime which warrants
electrocution. He was approached and detained by a Park Rangerette who
remains unnamed. Hesterberg claimed he wasn't carrying any form of
identification on him. (I don't either when I'm out doing PT) Witnesses
are reported to have seen the man ask why he was being detained. He
asked several times and received no answer, so he began to walk away.
That action is perfectly reasonable.

I said
"reasonable". If a Law Imposement Officer cannot articulate a reason for
your detention, then he is detaining you without cause. As he began to
go about his business, bothering no one and damaging no property, he was
hit with an electro-shock weapon.

From the piece on sfgate.com,
"Hesterberg, who said he didn't have identification with him, allegedly
gave the ranger a false name, Levitt said." Note how he allegedly gave a
false name. Allegedly? The Law Imposement Officerette doesn't have to
prove anything. She only alleges and it is assumed to be true. If she
makes such an allegation in court, and it cannot be sustained, she can
withdraw it, and not fear being charged with the FELONY of perjury. We
don't know what Hesterberg told the Rangerette. We only have her
allegation.

Again from the sfgate.com piece, " Hesterberg... was arrested on suspicion of
failing to obey a lawful order, having dogs off-leash and knowingly
providing false information..."

The crime articulated
was "Suspicion of failing to obey a lawful order"? What the freaking
fuck is that? "Having dogs off-leash" may be a valid citation, but if
the Officer/Rangerette could not specify to Mr. Hesterberg what the
offense was, he no lawful duty to give her his name. That part comes
down to his word against hers. Now, at Common Law, the burden of proof
is on the person using force to detain the other, to prove that force
was justified. Would you care to wager as to the presumption of
correctness when Mr. Hesterberg goes to court?

Again
from sfgate.com, "Witnesses said the use of a stun gun and the arrest
seemed excessive for someone walking two small dogs off leash.",

and "It was really scary," said Michelle Babcock, who said she had seen the
incident as she and her husband were walking their two border collies.
"I just felt so bad for him.",

and, "Babcock said Hesterberg had repeatedly asked the ranger why he was being detained. She didn't answer him, Babcock said.",

and finally, "He just tried to walk away. She never gave him a reason," Babcock said.
The ranger shot Hesterberg in the back with her shock weapon as he walked off, Babcock said.
"We were like in disbelief," she said. "It didn't make any sense."

It sounds to me as though Mr. Hersterberg was perfectly justified in walking away. Ultimately, the charge is "Contempt of Cop".

EVERY
free man should be outraged. Alas, this has become all too common. The
Cops presume it was the right thing to do because it was the cops what
dunnit.

The court will presume the Officerette in
question was doing right unless she is challenged vigorously and made to
present evidence to support her allegation. Your neighbors have been
conditioned to react viscerally to your arrest with fear and submission,
averted eyes, and shame to have known you.

Folks
remember this when you serve on a jury. You as a juror (that "We the
people..." thingy), have all the power you need to exonerate Mr.
Hesterberg. Stand up and say "NO!"

Say "NO!", when some poor soul is prosecuted for possessing a small amount of marijuana.

Say "No!" when any man stands before the Law for any "crime" which is in essence malum prohibitum.

Will
we live as Free Men, or as serfs? Are we owners of our Republic of
subjects of it? Shall we be remembered as Spartans or helots? Folks,
this is NOT freedom. Our forefathers would weep in shame at what has
become of the Country they entrusted to our care.

Sunday, January 22, 2012

The money quote: ... As in all the founding documents, "United
States" is in the plural, signifying that the free and independent
states were united in delegating certain enumerated powers for their own
mutual benefit. Thus, "waging War against them" means the states.
Waging war against the free and independent states is what constitutes
treason under the U.S. Constitution. That's why Lincoln's invasion of
the Southern states was the very definition of Treason.

Causapatet at Battlefield USA has some very good points to make. I enjoy reading his blog often. His advice? Go out a buy a gun! Buy Several. Carry your sidearm when you go about your business. A right unexercised is a right lost!

Billy Beck mirrors my thoughts exactly. I have not voted in a General Election since 1992. I saw that the fix was in then and I have seen no evidence to the contrary since. I refuse to participate in a farce, and by doing so, give it my endorsement.

We too often fail to cut through the PC misdirection offered
by our enemies within, so let us remind everyone right now: Liberalism is
Communism in a cloak.

Below are the 10 points laid out by Marx.

Consider them and consider where the nation is today in
reference to each.

Then, consider for each of the points which of our political
parties advocate for policies and programs to achieve the stated goals.

1. Abolition of property in land and
application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and
rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by
means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and
transport in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production
owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the
improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of
industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing
industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country
by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools.

Alright then, do you note how much of this agenda is aimed at the destruction of the right to private property? It even aims to destroy the idea of the right to property.

The right to property is rooted in one concept; In relation to God Almighty, I submit to the authority of my creator. In relation the rest of mankind, I own myself. I am responsible for me. Parents are wardens of their children but NOT owners. A husband is the warden of his family, he has the authority of command within his household , but he is not his family's owner. All human beings have intrinsic value and the same standing before God. God is the author of all law. Therefore, all human beings stand equally before the law. All human beings have the right to acquire and dispose of personal property and real property (meaning Land).

Recognizing this concept, in the year 1215 A.D. the Barons of England (the land owners) gave Good King john an ultimatum: Recognize that YOU are NOT above the law, or you will NOT be King. Recognize the Natural rights of all Englishmen, and anyone under your realm... or you will be removed from your throne. Free men are governed by consent, slaves are ruled by force of arms or the fear thereof. Simple enough, right? Much has been said of the enlightenment period of legal/political thought, etc., but the root of all legitimate government is the in the Magna Carta. The Founding generation of these United States looked to that precedent in writing the Declaration of Independence.

Socialism/Communism, as I have written before is NOT an economic system. If it were, its proponents would have abandoned it long ago. Collectivism fails economically every where it is tried, every time it is tried.

Why then do they keep pursuing it? Because they're stupid?

NO! It is because they are evil.

The useful-idiot true believers never get beyond the theoretical. Their thoughts never see the concrete results of the illogic they espouse. When faced the the results of their pipe dream, they either will go mad, refuse to see it, or have an epiphany.

The true movers and shakers in the collectivist world seek only power. They seek raw, naked, boot-stamping-on-a-human-face-forever, power! They use to force to acquire and to maintain power. They are sociopaths who cannot conceive of their own wrong. You will notice how socialists/communists call people, who fight back against their property being taken, Reactionaries. Why do they use that term? It is so obvious it is painful. You leave me alone, I don't have a problem with you. You attempt to steal from me and I will "react". Reactionaries are seen as non-submissives. To the socialist/communist, they must be eliminated!

Neal Knox, writing the Hard Corps Report, long ago, told of how he confronted a power mongering leftist in Congress and said something to the effect of , "But the people have a right...", to which the collectivist sociopath shouted, "Oh! You and your Goddamned rights!"

To the collectivist/socialist/communist/control freak, there is nothing higher than having control over any one and every one within reach. Power is it's own reward. Once they have power they will inevitably do evil, because, they can think of nothing else to do with it.

Did you ever deal with a control freak in the work place or class room? When ever a majority finally points out to him that he is wrong, he will declare something like, "Everyone here is an asshole except for me!" Now place that same control freak into a national setting, and give him control over populations of people and apparatuses of production. He will bring the nation to ruin, all the while declaring that everyone over which he rules is an asshole, a subversive, a reactionary... and only he, alone on the earth, is normal.

Back to the above, Marx's point one, two, and four are immediate attacks on property. Points two, five, six, and ten are all means to the desired end.

As to point two, does anyone recall when the income tax (sixteenth amendment) and the Federal Reserve Act came into being? Was it just about simultaneously in 1913? Was that a coincidence? An accident of history?

As to point eight, does anyone remember President Franklin Roosevelt's labor battalions under the WPA? Has anyone ever wondered where FDR got his model for the national Farm Program? Take a look at the Soviet farm collective sometime. You'll see soft tyranny in the making.

As to point ten, wouldn't you give your dog free obedience training? Your dog IS your property, is it not?

And lastly, the point I want to make in the entire discussion, is about "the means of production". Socialists/communists always demand the collectivization or nationalization of "the means of production". Do factories grow them selves out of the forest? Does steel forge itself out of the clay? Do works of art, tools and dies, automobiles and airplanes miracle themselves out of thin air? They must be conceived first. That conception takes place in the mind of a man. His thoughts, then his energy exerted as labor, his productive effort, and ultimately his life goes into making things, building things, creating stuff out of raw materials from THOUGHT to finished product. Distilled down, then, it is a man's mind which socialists/communists seek to own.

Socialism/Communism/Collectivism is THEFT and ultimately, SLAVERY. Do you get it? Now, what kind of person pursues inevitably this same objective? A sane and rational one?

Those who seek to control us are not "Nice guys who mean well..."

They are not "Well meaning but misguided..."

They have no respect for the Constitution, because it is the recognition of a law superior their whim. To them, "What I want" is the highest law in the land. Therefor, they cannot be bargained with, unless free men are willing to compromise, in which case, they win some, free men lose some. On it goes until those who would be free are reduced to mud.

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

David Codrea at War On Guns just gave me an idea. It is still in the developmental stage, but I'm convinced the concept is sound.

It seems Special Agent Lee Paige has lost his law suit in which he alleged loss of self esteem in the publication of the video which made him famous. If you haven't seen it, go to Youtube and watch the video.

Quote from SA Paige: "Alright! Alright, now... You see what happened? It could happen to you!"

He was the only one in the room that day, professional enough, that he knew of, to give such a demonstration.

Mission accomplished! You know, just a good guy tryin' to do a tough job.... thankless... dangerous... not seeking notoriety...

Hey, I just had a thought! Maybe there should be a guy like him on every SWAT team! That way, instead of murdering someone, like, I dunno, Jose Guerena or even one of their own, they could have a designated self-amputator!

Here's how it would work: The SWAT team surrounds the house. They get on the bull horn and yell, "You in the house come out now with your hand up!"

If the target doesn't comply in the few seconds allowed, the designated self-amputator would step forward and announce himself. Then he would pull his side arm shoot himself in the foot, or the leg or the arm.

Then he says, "Now, see what happened? It could happen to you! You could be blown away!"

Hell, the suspect would probably surrender in an instant, unable to resist while dying of laughter. The SWAT team would be pre-disastered, and wouldn't have to shoot anyone!

Take the quiz for an exercise, then give it some serious thought. This is the opposite of a good thing. The men who will SWAT you, or your neighbor, think it is the ultimate in a rockin' good time.

Fred, in comment number 13, says,

"17/21 – Age, posture and bearing, physical fitness are all good tells
– and yes, there’s a difference between being pumped on roids and
attitude and actually being fit, you know.
The one that did throw me was the facial hair, which most militaries discourage, but apparently those were somebodys troops.
But it goes to show you just can’t tell so easily – and normally I’d
keep my two cents but this very week the local PD raided a house almost
directly across the street from my place on (probably) some mala
prohibita BS, and when they did so they did NOT at any time announce
themselves as police before bashing the door in, and when a surprised
female shrieked in response, slugged her hard enough that *I* heard it,
in my bedroom across the street – and not in any kind of time for her to
figure out whether those were neighborhood thugs, or police… which if
you ask me, the difference around here in most parts of Michigan is
awful thin already, especially given that I was hired in part as a guard
in order to discourage aggression and harrassment BY the police upon
this neighborhood.
Bad enough you have to hire someone to do the job they can’t be
bothered to do, but having that someone actively protect you AGAINST
your so-called protectors is ridiculous – and we have responded via not
paying for it, and levelling punitive budget cuts, which as a temporary
solution was fine, but also encourages their rabid traffic ticketing and
forfeiture attempts."

Eric Holder has backed himself into another corner. Discrimination as it applies to basic rights in society, cannot be tolerated. David Codrea writing in today's Gun Rights Examiner applies logic where it should be applied.

The basic premise is this: The Department of Justice is saying that a South Carolina law which requires potential voters to present a valid, state issued, photo identification before exercising the right to vote is not valid because it impacts minority voters disparagingly. Minority voters, you see are 20% less likely to have a state issued photo I.D. than white voters. So what is being said it, that the requirement to provide a state issued photo I.D. before one can exercise a constitutionally secured right is invalid.

Federal law, however demands that before a person is permitted to purchase a firearm, he must provide a state issued photo I.D. and that if he does not he cannot legally purchase a firearm.

The money quote from Gun Rights Examiner:

So a voter drive to ensure that everyone has proper ID is out of the
question and too much of a burden on the electorate? And racist to
boot? And the solution is, in order to ensure minority voter rights are
effectively enfranchised, that no positive identification of eligibility
is required?Here’s the thing: Let’s take the DOJ’s rationale for overturning the
will of South Carolinians as enacted by their lawful representatives at
face value, instead of the politically-motivated fraud designed to
disenfranchise Republicans they know it is. If Perez is correct, that
lack of state-issued photo ID is 20% more likely to disenfranchise
minorities from their right to vote, why would we not also believe it
would have a similar effect on their right to purchase a firearm, as is
specified on ATF’s Form 4473 requiring a driver’s license or “valid government issued photo identification,” and similar forms as proof of eligibility?

The government can’t have it both ways. By their own admission and
actions, they consider a requirement to produce official photo
identification as discriminatory, with a significant statistical impact
on the enfranchisement of minority rights. Heller and McDonald
leave no doubt that the Second Amendment articulates an individual
right recognized by the federal government and applicable to the states,
and it is the duty of the Department of Justice to ensure that denials
of rights are prosecuted.

I have pointed out before that hypocrites don't like their hypocrisy pointed out. They want to be hypocrites, they just hate being called hypocrites.

Friday, January 13, 2012

Arctic Patriot links to a very good essay from Casey Research, dealing with the transition from the last vestiges of Constitutional Republic to Police State/Empire. It is called The Rise of the Praetorian Class.

It demands a thorough look by anyone who cares.

I commented on Arctic Patriot the following: The Military will do exactly what it is ordered to do. To most military members, their Constitutional oath is just a mouthful of words. Military members are under UCMJ authority. Orders will be followed. Police of all stripes, on the other hand, are NOT military. As much as they like to play dress up and make war on the citizens they supposedly serve, they are pretenders. They are NOT under any coercive authority. They may quit and go home at any time. As soon as it gets too stressful, too risky and too expensive to do their jobs, they will melt back into the population and become "civilians" again.

If you don't care, disregard. If you do, take it to heart. Go read the essay.

I have not yet decided on my own course of action. Someone has. His name is Mark Roote. The source of his comments are in the link HERE.

Mark's core thoughts:

Now to my response when I find one of these criminal enterprises in action:
1) I have a smart phone with the ability to live feed video to the
internet, and it will be rolling and feeding before I come to a stop at
said checkpoint.
2) I will knowingly submit to some violations of my G*d-given and
unalienable rights in order to be allowed to pass through this
checkpoint.
3) Even though I will eventually submit, I will put up a verbal fight
and get as close to the line of being arrested as I feel comfortable
doing without actually getting arrested.
4) I am breaking no laws for which they can legally arrest me (While
Open Carry is legal without a license in Pennsylvania, being inside a
vehicle is considered concealed and therefore requires a license in
accordance with state law. I have a valid License to Carry Firearms
issued in Pennsylvania.)
5) After I am ‘cleared’ to go about my business, I will deliver any
non-combatants from my vehicle to a safe location and I will return from
a distance… there will be no live video feed of any further actions,
but there may be video of one form or another available at a later date.This is my decision, and I will live and die by it.

A man has committed himself to a principled course of action. Each of us must consider the same options. I pray the Fed-Goons are reading these blogs. I pray that common sense prevails.

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Folks, go to Lew Rockwell's page and read the piece by Charles Goyette.

A quote from Goyette's piece:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Perhaps it
is a slope that can be discerned in the threat of violence as the
first tool of diplomacy. In the paramilitary forces and SWAT teams
that are now part of virtually every federal department and agency.
In the Freudian envy with which local police departments across
the land ape the dress and manner of military operations. In the
TSA Viper (Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response) teams that
have now moved their surveillance of the American people beyond
the airports and put them on the open streets of das Heimland.

It happens
in every power grab in modern times. Like the National Defense Authorization
Act, there is always a legalistic pretext upon which the power grab
of the state relies. Lenin consolidated his control under the cover
of a blizzard of legalistic decree-laws. Hitler promulgated his
emergency decree "For the Protection of the People and the
State" on the day of the Reichstag fire. That was followed
by the "Enabling Act," which declared that laws of the
Reich could deviate from the constitution.

Paper pretexts
all, slow-motion coups in the small hours conferring the appearance
of legitimacy as they subvert the people’s freedom.

Of course,
most of the national news media, the lapdog press, will miss the
latest assaults on the Bill of Rights. But do not assume it’s because
they were all hung-over. It’s easier to believe that they just don’t
care. If there is any dissent at all about this power grab, it will
not be because of the attack on your freedom. The national talk
shows will see it as important only to the extent that it allows
their favored team, red or blue, to move the ball down the field.

But where are
America’s sworn defenders of the Constitution? With raised arms,
all federal officeholders mouth the words, "I do solemnly swear
that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true
faith and allegiance to the same…"

As we slip-slide into tyranny, those who oppress their own people have no qualms about doing it. Those oppressed want deeply to believe they are submitting to tyranny for their own good. This amounts to an epoch of National Self Delusion.

Forget the written Constitution for a moment. Will we ever live as free people? Is it all a lie? Do we have Natural rights, endowed upon us by God or are we mere Helots, thankful for the privileges and legislated immunities extended to us while we toil at the whim of the Dorian master class? Shall we just give up the national myth and admit we live under the thuggery of crooks and gangsters? Is that truly who we Americans are?

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Take a look at Oath Keepers and breathe some fresh air. Ohio Peace Officer Jim Singleton has taken a stand. His die is cast. May God bless him!

It should not be surprising to see a Peace Officer saying publicly and for the record, that he intends to honor his oath. These days, however, it is surprising.

It also shows that there is hope. Perhaps some other Peace Officers who feel the same but were afraid to speak out (peer pressure is a bitch) will now find the courage to take a stand. Perhaps some others who were on the fence will no grow a pair of Constitutional gonads and come down on the side of Life, Liberty, and Property. Perhaps now, there will be a clear delineation between those who believe their job is to serve at the pleasure of the public and those who believe their job is to subjugate the public.

The rest of you, where do you stand? Will you be Peace Officers or Law Imposement thugs?

Below is a transcript of his letter. Well done, Jim!

Ohio Oath Keepers
Office of the Secretary
Law Enforcement Liaison

Greetings and Salutations,

It’s unfortunate that I have to write this letter, however in light
of current events it is inevitable. Just days ago the United States
Congress passed the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) this in
itself was necessary. However in this bill was an insidious piece of
verbiage that for all intents and purposes destroys the foundation of
everything we believe in and took an oath to uphold. To me the
possibility of those citizens and others under my protection being
spirited off in the middle of the night by agents of the military, then
being summarily incarcerated without access to judge or jury are
insufferable and intolerable acts.
It will be argued that this only applies to foreign persons or others
suspected of terrorism, but there are far too many avenues available
to apply this to any group to which any administration may take umbrage
with. When growing up and especially during our training in the
academy we are instructed that the constitutional rights of all must be
upheld at all times, as well as the respect for all people we come in
contact with or represent. This section of the NDAA attempts to remove
those rights which are enumerated and given to us by our creator, and
places them in the hands of the office of the President of the United
States to be disregarded at his whim.

And in those few words lies a conundrum, do we as police officers,
sheriffs, deputies and others who have taken the oath to uphold and
defend the constitution, now turn our back on that very oath? Do we now
turn against the very same people that entrusted us with a most sacred
duty to serve and protect them? If in fact we follow a rule of law
such as this bill enacts, it would mean that the oath that we all took
meant nothing. We are obliged to follow all lawful orders given to us,
but we cannot do this blindly. History has seen the result of these
acts and has judged them accordingly. I can only ask all of you to take
a moment to reflect upon all that we are taught and hold dear, the
people we serve deserve and demand our highest respect for it is
through them and they alone that we were given this oath. Do we simply
turn a blind eye for the sake of political expediency and lose our
respect? Is a few pieces of silver so dear that we would sell our honor
for it? How will we explain to our friends and loved ones why members
of our community were spirited away or how will they see us when they
realize (that when their time comes) we won’t be there for them?

I believe that if and when those orders come, I cannot in good faith and
in strict observance to my oath, allow myself to be a part of them. I
would hope that members of our military in accordance to the articles
of the UCMJ, would also refuse them as well. When that time comes I
will do exactly as I have sworn to do, I will serve and protect those
under my care, so help me God.

Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying,
Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?
Then said I, Here am I; send me. Isaiah 6:8

Sunday, January 08, 2012

Knuckle Dragger makes some very good points about resistance. I salute him in his clarity of thought and directness. His piece reminds me of the speech by Jose Wales about getting mean, plumb mad-dog mean, "Because if you give up and quit, you neither live nor win. That's just the way it is."

This line of reasoning caused me to apply it to todays headlines. Hence, some thoughts and questions follow:

I would ask if the
doctrine of resistance is still valid in the reader's psyche when the
"criminals" are legitimate agents of the State. I would also note
that the criminal and gangster's mentality applies just the same to gangs in
Official State Costume.

Quote from the piece: "Handing over your life by
surrendering to someone who is in the process of committing a violent crime
against you is a form of suicide. Some survive but many do not. The monster
gets to decide for you."

Does this principle apply when a bunch of cops are standing
over you, beating, stomping, and kicking you while screaming, "Stop
resisting!"

Quote: "Why would you believe anything that someone who
is committing a crime against you says?"

When the FBI decided to use tanks against the Branch
Davidians, they began their attack with bull horns blaring, "This is not
an assault. If you surrender now, you will not be harmed..." Indeed, why
would anyone believe the statements of someone who is driving a tank over the
top of them?

Quote: "Better to die fighting in place than to be tied
up, doused with gasoline and burned alive."

Indeed.

Quote: "Only members of his tribe are actually human in
his mind."

How many times do you hear policemen refer to their fellow
citizens as "civilians"? Search you tube and look at the plethora of examples of police violence against the people they
supposedly serve. They do it because they are sure they will get away with it.
Their brothers in arms will (at best) look the other way or (at worst) lie and
hide or destroy evidence.

Quote: "You cannot expect mercy from someone who does
not know what mercy is."

Consider the case of Kelly Thomas, beaten to death by
Fullerton Police officers. There were witnesses. No one stopped them, no one interfered. They killed
a man then gave each other high-fives.

What about when your home is attacked in a para-military
style assault, such as happened to Jose Guerena?

What about when given conflicting commands such as
"Freeze! Get on the ground! Don't move! Do it now!"

What about when given no option to surrender at all, such as
the case of motorcyclist Mike McCloskey, who was shot in the back by an Ottawa
Hills Police officer for the crime of looking over his shoulder?

What about John T. Williams, shot dead by a Seattle Police
officer for the crime of walking down the street while whittling on a piece of
wood? Sickening video...

What about the case of Oscar Grant, who was shot and killed by BART officer Johannes Mehserle. Mehserle and another officer were kneeling on Oscar's neck and back, when Mehserle decided to pull his pistol and shoot Grant in the back. He later claimed that he intended to taser Grant. The fact is he shot him dead.

I am not anti-cop. I am very much pro-Peace Officer. I am very much anti-bullying, and anti-thuggery. I am not saying that all agents of the State are criminals.

Now we are beginning to see formerly free men act in predictable ways when backed into a logical, and practical corner. They cannot expect justice. They cannot expect the cops will do the right thing even MOST of the time. Unfortunately, when a situation such as this happens, the agents of the state only lament, "Why didn't he just submit and comply? Why didn't he just roll over and piss on himself..." There is never a thought that they themselves could be wrong. Their subculture is rife with an "Us vs. them"
mentality, including an attitude which can be summed up as, "It was the right
thing to do 'cause it was us what done it."

In the movie First Blood, Sheriff Will Teasle is heard to say, "People go fucking around with the law and all hell breaks loose."

The mistake a logical man makes is assigning logical motivations to the actions of a crook. A logical man sometimes thinks that a bad actor MUST have a good reason for doing something seemingly illogical. This psychological projection is a common mistake. It is a mistake made by good men and criminals both. However, good men are slower and less likely to catch on than criminals. Crooks, when they realize they are dealing with a genuinely honest man, see him as an easy mark. An honest man, when he realizes he's been had, reacts with righteous indignation and anger. The crook is laughing the whole time. The honest man looks for justice and seeks to be made whole again. The crook, thinks the honest man should just get over "losing". To a crook, the honest man should just adopt the rule of the jungle and get some for himself. The honest man thinks he can show the crook how to live a rational and productive life, if only he tries hard enough. Neither is correct and never the twain shall meet.

To a crook, the law of the jungle applies in everything he does. There is no "right" or "wrong", but only "what I want" and "what I don't want". There is no such thing as inherently "lawful" or "unlawful". There is only "What can I get away with" and "what can I not get away with". He does not look at the civilized world and see buildings that MEN BUILT. He does not see inventions created my the MINDS of MEN. He does not see the result of design and effort. He sees only, stuff. He sees stuff that exists. He sees the civilized world just as He sees the jungle, full of stuff which exists.

To a sane and rational man, a logical man, the jungle itself is full of the wonder of God's design. He sees the deliberate creation of each and every creature and plant. He wonders at the Creator's plan. When a rational man sees new inventive technology, he marvels at the inventor's thoughts, efforts, and results. He seeks to know who the inventor was and what motivated him. He deeply appreciates the effort expended in creating the end result from concept, design, forming, sculpting, prototyping, testing, refining, and finally producing an end product that his peers can use.

Think of the Wright brothers in their quest to master powered flight. They spent years in the effort and untold sums of their own money to make their dream a reality. Mankind marveled. Inventors around the world, when they realized the Wrights had broken the code, proceeded to emulate them. The world of powered aviation took off (no pun intended). Mankind benefited greatly and forever owes a debt of gratitude to them.

Do you think the pick-pocket back in Dayton cared one wit how much effort went into creating the world's first powered flying machine? Do you think he cared how much money was spent? No, he didn't. He only looked up one day and said, "Damn, I ain't never seen one of them before!".

A rational man looked up and saw a flying machine and wondered, "How could I build such a thing?". A Crook looked up and thought, "I wants me one uh them!"

Crooks sometimes go into politics. They find their way into positions where they can wield arbitrary power over other people. They become bureaucrats and apparatchiks. They establish little fiefdoms, where their word alone is law. Remember, to the crook, there is no law higher than "what I want".

Socialists are such people. I do not mean the dirty OWS types you saw on CNN. I mean those in politics. College pukes mostly do not know better. Sixty year old politicians do. The argument about whether socialism "works" is a game of charades. The debate is intended to get rational people talking, arguing and debating. The argument keeps rational people, sane people, logical people and productive people busy while the crook-socialist steals more of their life. Here is the big secret: Socialism is not an economic system. It is a control mechanism and it works exactly as intended. It works PERFECTLY!

In the same way, gun control advocates have always used the argument over crime and "gun-violence". The whole argument is used to keep sane and rational men busy, debating the effectiveness of gun control as public policy. While you are spun-up and kept busy debating the latest effort at disarming you, they are picking your pocket. The gun control advocates know very well that their policies DO NOT reduce crime or "gun-violence". They simply do not care. They want YOU disarmed. They will use whatever mechanism they think they can get away with to do it. Disarming you leaves the crooks with absolute arbitrary power to use you as a slave or kill you, which ever suits their whim. The law of the jungle applies.

In a previous piece, I wrote about Franklin Roosevelt and his intentions with the National Firearms Act. If you asked Mr. Roosevelt why he wanted to disarm the American people, he would respond, "That is not my intention at all! I want to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. I want to help people!" His, and Clinton's, and Obama's category of "people who shouldn't have them", means you and me. He wants all of his apparatchiks and bureaucrats armed to the hilt. Those people do his bidding. He wants YOU and me disarmed because armed men are free men. Free men who are armed tend to resist control mechanisms like socialism.

ATF has recently backed itself into a corner with the ruling on non-shotgun shotguns. A person between the ages of eighteen and twenty is "allowed" to purchase rifles and shotguns from an FFL.
ATF sent out a letter years ago saying that a person under the age of
twenty-one could not purchase a pistol grip shotgun from an FFL because
it is not a shotgun. A shotgun, you see is designed to be fired from
the shoulder. Since something like Mossberg's persuader was not
originally manufactured with a shoulder stock, and thus was not intended
to be fired from the shoulder, it is not a shotgun and therefor cannot
be sold to a person between the ages of eighteen and twenty. Several
manufacturers took ATF at their word and submitted short barrel firearms
for examination and classification. They have over-all lengths of
twenty-six inches, but have barrels shorter than the arbitrary limit set
for long guns. ATF has said that these are not NFA weapons and may be
sold to any free man who passes the NICS check and is over the age of
twenty-one. What do you want to bet there will soon be screeching and
howling at the new "loop hole" recently discovered and eventually a
redefinition of the regulations by ATF? Do you think they do this
because they are "good guys who mean well"? This is the same ATF who has been facilitating the smuggling of firearms to criminal gangs in Mexico and using that as an excuse to wield more power over you.

Ask any cop of any stripe why he became a cop and he'll say autonomically, "Because I wanted to help people!" The response is like the Manchurian Candidate. The same cop will then proceed to stomp on, and even murder the citizens he is supposedly "helping". He does not see a contradiction. There is no logical contradiction because the statement "I want to help people" is a lie. It is a deliberate lie to keep YOU confused while he exercises arbitrary power over you. He says it because it works. HRT members after Ruby Ridge wanted to "help people". ATF agents after Waco wanted to "help people". DEA agents after raiding medical marijuana farms and dispensaries wanted to "help people". IRS agents... uh, never mind.

Think for a moment of a rifle range, or a maneuver box if you will. The founders of our Republic set very wide left and right limits on what they considered natural liberty. Setting left and right limits allows a maximum exercise of creative and productive freedom while maintaining safety. You may do unto yourself as you will, but you may not harm or murder another. You may attain and possess property, but you may not steal it from another. You may live as you choose, but you may not deliberately offend your neighbor. These are the norms and standards of rational free men.

Control Freaks do not live by any set of principles, except for those previously stated. They live their miserable lives constantly scheming on how to manipulate others.

When a free man says, "I would like to build a trebuchet!"

A control freak demands, "Why do you need one?"

A sane and rational man's response to the control freak SHOULD be a brutal punch to the nose and a devastating kick to the nuts!

Politicians continually use any excuse they think will work to legally expand their authority. To them, power is its own reward. Any excuse will do, if it works.

Stop debating when the other side has set the terms for the debate! You have already lost!

Stop rationalizing and attempting to assign logic to the actions of a tyrant. You have already lost!

Do not succumb to the manipulation techniques of control freaks. If you do, in any amount no matter how small, you have already lost!

It is the law of the jungle, insane, illogical, arbitrary, whimsical and criminal... or the law of God, sane, rational, logical, and just. Our time for choosing is now.

About Me

I am a former soldier who has traveled a bit of the world and has seen a few things.
I am a Traditional Catholic, and an avid shooter.
I am a logical satirist. Some people call me a smart-ass. I use Logic to point out hypocrisy. Hypocrites will only get angry.
I don't post often, only when motivated to by current events.